CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

Mr. Vishanoff related that the Arena Transportation Issues Committee, a subcommittee of the Fairmount Area Neighbors, was meeting but it was not advertising the meetings. He took issue with that. He thought the subcommittee needed to be forthright about its meetings so that the public did not have to go through a lot of trouble to find out about “meetings in dark rooms.” He averred that urban renewal had many fronts in Eugene. He wanted a plan that really included the citizens. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, recalled the cities in which he once lived and urban renewal projects that had occurred there. He felt urban renewal had been devastating to all of the cities. He believed it was a deficient process. He averred that people deserved to have a proposal and to engage public input before it was a “done deal.” He asserted that he had correctly projected the low number of jobs that the Riverfront Renewal District had generated. He also predicted the Broadway Place development would not produce the benefits that were hoped. He stressed that 40 percent of the cost of the project had come from public funds. He opined that it was difficult to see concomitant public benefit. Jan Wostmann , 2645 Riverview Street, urged the council to not extend the life of the urban renewal district and also not to increase the maximum indebtedness. He believed it was difficult for the public to become involved with this level of financing when there was no project on the table. He likened this to placing the “cart before the horse.” He felt this type of tax increment financing complicates the citizens’ determination of what the highest use of tax dollars would be. He noted the recent discussion of the need for a new City Hall and the need to maintain streets. He acknowledged the citizens’ desire to improve the downtown area but he felt that if questions were asked regarding how it would be paid for in light of the financial needs in other areas, such as the street maintenance and preservation and new city hall, citizens would have a different response. He asserted that parking structures would be on the bottom of their list of priorities. He suggested that the project be placed before the public and financed with a General Obligation (GO) bond. He supported having a vibrant downtown, but he wanted the City to do it in a publicly accountable way. Russ Brink , 251 West Broadway, said he lived at Broadway Place. He read into the record an email from Sue Prichard, Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) board member. He noted that Ms. Prichard was very knowledgeable about the economy of the downtown and the leasing and sale of real estate in the downtown area. Ms. Prichard supported adoption of the ordinance. She believed that tax increment financing was a good tool that would ultimately improve the values of surrounding businesses. She thought it was sometimes okay to make small sacrifices for the overall gain of the community. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, declared that all of the citizens would love to see their taxes stay in their neighborhoods. He opined that it was a great deal for the property owners in the downtown area. He wanted to see revitalization in the downtown area but he questioned how the City was going about it. He alleged that Connor and Woolley were largely responsible for the “blight” in the downtown and opined that “getting rid of them” would improve it. Mr. Monk opposed the ordinance until a specific plan had been developed and the WBAC was done with its work. He reiterated Councilor Bettman’s concern regarding the lack of money listed in Table 5 that was slated for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements and other public facilities. He also had not seen money in the plan for relocation and transition costs for the businesses that could be displaced. Rob Handy , 455½ River Road, was excited about bringing more housing to the downtown area. He asked how the public subsidy could be weighed against the public benefit. He suggested that the City should look at some of the buildings other than the two slated to be renovated. He believed that other buildings would have public benefit to the public subsidy that citizens would understand. He likened the City’s involvement MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 9 Work Session